Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Revisiting the OJ case for the first time

Watching an episode from the Simpsons-esque OJ Simpson spoof series, fittingly entitled the OJ Simpsons, with my younger brother, his probing questions brought the murder trial up. Reminiscing on the day the verdict was announced in my elementary school cafeteria, I could answer little.

Digging around a little, we were struck by the incompetence of the prosecution. That one of the lead prosecutors, Marcia Clark, who cashed in with a book about the botched trial and now enjoys a plush correspondent position with Entertainment Tonight, would so foolishly stack the odds so heavily against the prosecution is remarkable. Of a jury pool that was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian, the racial composition of the twelve who issued the verdict was 17% white, 75% black, and 8% Hispanic. Relative to non-blacks, blacks were overrepresented by a factor of nearly eight!

Clark assumed women, irrespective of race, would sympathize with the plight of a female victim of the worst kind of domestic violence. But evolutionary pressures have placed a premium on a conciliatory predisposition in women in contrast to the competitiveness favored in men. This bioligical underpinning is reinforced by cultural influences that urge women to be tender and forgiving.

A gender alliance trumping a tribalistic one? Clark thought that black women would side with a white woman. Yet the shortage of viable mates for black females, given black male mortality and criminality, and the lopsided number of black male-white female marriages relative to much less frequent white male-black female marriages (a ratio of nearly 3-to-1), put a target on that golddigger's back! And her pal Ron Goldman, as a Jew, wasn't going to elicit much sympathy.

I'll never forget where I was the moment the OJ verdict was announced.

I was helping out a friend who earns his living videotaping legal depositions - and a nice living it is, BTW. He had secured a rather lucrative deal with the US Government in a class action racial discrimination suit against the Secretary of the Navy, filed by a group of African-American civil service employees. My friend's problem was, the US attorneys wanted to get through the multiple deponents in an expedited manner - which meant 10-12 hours of testimony a day, 6 (and sometimes 7) days a week for an entire summer. Needless to say, my friend couldn't abandon all of his other local clients, so I filled in for him, at the princely sum of $15 and hour. I would sit for hours at a time babysitting his camera and VHS recorder (remember, this was 1995).

At any rate, the afternoon that the verdict was read, one of the plaintiffs was being represented by a stately middle-aged black female attorney. I had been very impressed by her professional demeanor during the proceedings, and her apparent knowledge of the case and the points of law on which it rested. Also in the room was the court reporter, a quiet 30-something white female with whom I had worked before. I knew only that she was a single mom who had lived in the area only a few months.

It just so happened that we were on a break when the verdict came over CNN, while some of the participants in the deposition were watching. The reaction amongst the African Americans was one of near-unbridled joy - I daresay they were happier over the jury's decision than OJ himself. I turned to make some sort of snide remark to the court reporter, and stopped short - on her face was a look of stunned disbelief, and tears began streaming down her reddened cheeks. I couldn't help but ask her why. She choked back her emotions and said, "I'm sorry - this just hits too close to home for me. . .the reason I moved here from out west was that my husband tried to kill me six months ago, after I had told the police over and over again he was threatening me. . .and when I had him arrested for attempted murder, he convinced the jury that I had confronted him and started an argument, and that he was defending himself - and he got away with it. And now this poor woman is dead, and the man who killed her is walking away scot-free. . .I could have ended up just like her."

Just as these words were leaving her lips, the black female attorney strode into the room, exultant with victory, a huge grin on her face, saying "I can't believe it! Praise the Lord!" She stopped short when she saw the court reporter, regained her composure somewhat, and said, "I'm sorry, I'm just so excited, we finally won one of these cases! i mean, we all KNOW he's guilty, but it was just our turn!"

The government is not known to have wanted to win that case, and those who made the decisions acted exactly as if they feared to get a conviction.They would have feared another riot by the blacks.How are we supposed to regard blacks as fellow citizens deserving of our loyalty, though, if they keep doing jury nullifications, and won't be your witness for the prosecution, when one of theirs is caught?The appeasement and rewarding of such black loyalties to freedom-for-aggression, leads to more of the same, and to such warfare as the LA public schools, for example, are currently afflicted with. For each point of IQ differential between two populations in the same polity, the lower group has greater incentive to try to shift statuscompetition towards one of ruthless violence, and away from one of IQ or its correlates.

I think that Marcia Clark was blinded by her feminist liberalism. She believed that female solidarity as victims would transcend racial, that is tribal, lines and would end up delivering the guilty verdict. What Johnny Cockran understood instinctively is that black females will defend the actions of black males in preference to any kind of gender solidarity with females across racial boundries. Such tribalistic sentiments are not recognized as relevant by the liberal orthodoxy that Marcia Clark so obviously believes in.

No wonder why there is so much crime and depravity in the black community. Blacks will always close ranks with the criminal element in their midst, even as that element victimizes them the most. When it is whites who are raped, killed, robbed, then it it cause for celebration. We have all seen it, from the LA riots to OJ to the Duke Fake Rape. My cousin who is a cop tells me stories that would make your hair stand on end. Many times he has gone to arrest blacks on outstanding warrants, etc... and the community will either defend these criminals by letting them know the police are coming or even try to prevent the arrest with rocks, bottles, and sometimes gunshots. As for Brent Lane's story, I remember blacks celebrating as well. Unbelievable. And the most craziest, most fucked up thing is that a black lawyer and a woman who is supposed to be educated and gotten herself free of all the ills of black culture, gladly and deliberately jumps back into the same depravity that has that community so screwed up in the first place, not the mention the havoc, crime and expense that it inflicts on the rest of the nation. You bet OJ was guilty and it was the turn of the blacks to get away with murder, again. Thinking like that used to be called racial violence, but apparently when blacks do it, it is just getting what they are owed. Go back and read the post about that idiot rap artist that was posted here a few dyas ago. It ties in quite well to this post as well. This, my friends is why there is rot. And if all that is not depressing enough, read this and then buy a gun for your wife/girlfriend/sister/mom and maybe yourself:

Exactly the conclusion I was coming to. Her astounding ingorance regarding race relations and human biodiversity in general cost her the case. She might believe in the superiority of pure reason, but reality doesn't work so ideally.

Anon,

You've probably seen the FBI stats Auster touches upon dealt with in much greater detail via Amren's analysis, but if not, it's here.